Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[Petrasylvania]

Nothing happened in Armenia, nothing to see there.

Isis destroyed historical artifacts there. Historians who were caught sneaking artifacts out were tortured and executed.

ISIS was in Armenia?

[Tekeristan]

I rolled a natural 20 in perception.

Now roll against Turkish magic resistance.

B-but no one can beat Erdogan's s-sweet innocent p-puppy eyes!

[The East Marches II]

Nothing happened in Armenia, nothing to see there.

I rolled a natural 20 in perception.

Uhhhh, WESTERN PROPAGANDA

Yeah, thats the ticket.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Isis destroyed historical artifacts there. Historians who were caught sneaking artifacts out were tortured and executed.

ISIS was in Armenia?

Pretty old news, but Armenias historically been the melting pot of east and west, so it was tragic that isis had moved in.

[Post War America]

Museums, and memorials are for preserving history. Statues in the public square are for glorifying a cause. When the cause is the preservation of slavery, it is not worth commemorating. When that cause is a bloody civil war, caused by acts of treason, in the name of preserving the institution of slavery, it is not worth commemorating. It is also telling that most of the statues coming down were erected decades after the civil war, conveniently around the same time as the birth of the 20th century KKK.

This also ignores one of the Confederate generals being openly opposed to erecting the monuments in his own time.

I look at statues and I think about the history they fought for not if they should be glorified or not. Even if you want to move it from that spot it sad, because it's been there for so long and the people around it have grown accustomed to seeing it and remembering.

Those statues should be moved to museums where they can be surrounded with historical information and context, where they can more accurately do their supposed jobs (namely preserving history). If they're up in a public square they are serving a different purpose. It is say "We fully condone the actions of these people and think they are worthy of glorification". This becomes problematic when the cause those people were fighting for was the oppression and subjugation of a large segment of the population. The feelings of Southern Nationalists and "Heritage not Hate"rs are insignificant when compared to what the symbols actually mean.

[Sovaal]

I rolled a natural 20 in perception.

Uhhhh, WESTERN PROPAGANDA

Yeah, thats the ticket.

Fake News?

[Holy Tedalonia]

I look at statues and I think about the history they fought for not if they should be glorified or not. Even if you want to move it from that spot it sad, because it's been there for so long and the people around it have grown accustomed to seeing it and remembering.

Those statues should be moved to museums where they can be surrounded with historical information and context, where they can more accurately do their supposed jobs (namely preserving history). If they're up in a public square they are serving a different purpose. It is say "We fully condone the actions of these people and think they are worthy of glorification". This becomes problematic when the cause those people were fighting for was the oppression and subjugation of a large segment of the population. The feelings of Southern Nationalists and "Heritage not Hate"rs are insignificant when compared to what the symbols actually mean.

It's what you make it as. Really statues can be a mix bag, since they represent so many things. Some presidents heads that were slave owners are on Mount Rushmore should we tear their heads off?

[Post War America]

Those statues should be moved to museums where they can be surrounded with historical information and context, where they can more accurately do their supposed jobs (namely preserving history). If they're up in a public square they are serving a different purpose. It is say "We fully condone the actions of these people and think they are worthy of glorification". This becomes problematic when the cause those people were fighting for was the oppression and subjugation of a large segment of the population. The feelings of Southern Nationalists and "Heritage not Hate"rs are insignificant when compared to what the symbols actually mean.

It's what you make it as. Really statues can be a mix bag, since they represent so many things. Some presidents heads that were slave owners are on Mount Rushmore should we tear their heads off?

No but they didn't actively commit and act of treason and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the defense of slavery.

[Camicon]

Museums, and memorials are for preserving history. Statues in the public square are for glorifying a cause. When the cause is the preservation of slavery, it is not worth commemorating. When that cause is a bloody civil war, caused by acts of treason, in the name of preserving the institution of slavery, it is not worth commemorating. It is also telling that most of the statues coming down were erected decades after the civil war, conveniently around the same time as the birth of the 20th century KKK.

This also ignores one of the Confederate generals being openly opposed to erecting the monuments in his own time.

I look at statues and I think about the history they fought for not if they should be glorified or not. Even if you want to move it from that spot it sad, because it's been there for so long and the people around it have grown accustomed to seeing it and remembering.

As PWA said, "It is also telling that most of the statues coming down were erected decades after the civil war, conveniently around the same time as the birth of the 20th century KKK". Those statues don't have shit to do with "history" and everything to do with "those uppity blacks don't know their place, let's put up very public and highly visible statues of people that tore apart the country for the right to own them".

[The East Marches II]

I look at statues and I think about the history they fought for not if they should be glorified or not. Even if you want to move it from that spot it sad, because it's been there for so long and the people around it have grown accustomed to seeing it and remembering.

As PWA said, "It is also telling that most of the statues coming down were erected decades after the civil war, conveniently around the same time as the birth of the 20th century KKK". Those statues don't have shit to do with "history" and everything to do with "those uppity blacks don't know their place, let's put up very public and highly visible statues of people that tore apart the country for the right to own them".

Yes, thats why we raised them in the North too. It was rather a function of the end of the civil war generation dying off and people wanting to remember the war. They were cheap and mass produced. Towns all over my area have them from that same period.

[The Flutterlands]

In that case should people have really gotten their panties in a bunch when Trump Jr did his own opposition research?

DNC hires research firm.

Donald Jr. meets with lawyer with links to Russian government based on claims that the Russian government has secret information about Clinton.

Totally the same.

So there's a middle man (group) involved. So what?

[Petrasylvania]

DNC hires research firm.

Donald Jr. meets with lawyer with links to Russian government based on claims that the Russian government has secret information about Clinton.

Totally the same.

So there's a middle man (group) involved. So what?

The Steele Report is compiled research, not state intelligence espionage.

[Ifreann]

DNC hires research firm.

Donald Jr. meets with lawyer with links to Russian government based on claims that the Russian government has secret information about Clinton.

Totally the same.

So there's a middle man (group) involved. So what?

So if an agent of a foreign government tells you they have secret information about a former Secretary of State and current presidential candidate you don't excitedly arrange a meeting, you call the fucking FBI.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Those statues should be moved to museums where they can be surrounded with historical information and context, where they can more accurately do their supposed jobs (namely preserving history). If they're up in a public square they are serving a different purpose. It is say "We fully condone the actions of these people and think they are worthy of glorification". This becomes problematic when the cause those people were fighting for was the oppression and subjugation of a large segment of the population. The feelings of Southern Nationalists and "Heritage not Hate"rs are insignificant when compared to what the symbols actually mean.

It's what you make it as. Really statues can be a mix bag, since they represent so many things. Some presidents heads that were slave owners are on Mount Rushmore should we tear their heads off?

So how many statues of Auschwitz camp commandants are there in Germany?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Those statues should be moved to museums where they can be surrounded with historical information and context, where they can more accurately do their supposed jobs (namely preserving history). If they're up in a public square they are serving a different purpose. It is say "We fully condone the actions of these people and think they are worthy of glorification". This becomes problematic when the cause those people were fighting for was the oppression and subjugation of a large segment of the population. The feelings of Southern Nationalists and "Heritage not Hate"rs are insignificant when compared to what the symbols actually mean.

It's what you make it as. Really statues can be a mix bag, since they represent so many things. Some presidents heads that were slave owners are on Mount Rushmore should we tear their heads off?

Here is a litmus test: What is the person being displayed known for?
If your answer is: Being the first president, writing the Declaration of Independence, paying the sculptor and freeing the slaves, you're fine.
If your answer is: Leading a pro-slave treason against the United States, then we have a problem.

Sure, move those statues to museums to give them adequate historical context, that's great. However, statues in public serve very little of an educational purpose. If you want to remember history, that's fine. To quote doctor Jones Jr, that belongs in a museum. Public statues are reserved for those people whose core message we as a society declare to be noteworthy. For example, founding a liberal democracy, in case of Washington and Jefferson. Not levying war against the United States.

[Collatis]

It's what you make it as. Really statues can be a mix bag, since they represent so many things. Some presidents heads that were slave owners are on Mount Rushmore should we tear their heads off?

So how many statues of Auschwitz camp commandants are there in Germany?

Excellent article on the subject: Why There Are No Nazi Statues in Germany

[Vassenor]

So how many statues of Auschwitz camp commandants are there in Germany?

Excellent article on the subject: Why There Are No Nazi Statues in Germany

And yet the Nazi regime wasn't erased from history in the process.

[Collatis]

Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments!

[Philjia]

Excellent article on the subject: Why There Are No Nazi Statues in Germany

And yet the Nazi regime wasn't erased from history in the process.

Can attest that they in fact have a massive section of the Deutsches Historisches Museum given over to that particular part of their history. The Soviets and DDR destroyed a larger quantity of Nazi landmarks and buildings, including mostly sort of demolishing Hitler's bunker. In 2006 a small signboard was put in the car park that now stands on the site of the Führerbunker explaining that it's where the Führerbunker used to be.

[Holy Tedalonia]

It's what you make it as. Really statues can be a mix bag, since they represent so many things. Some presidents heads that were slave owners are on Mount Rushmore should we tear their heads off?

No but they didn't actively commit and act of treason and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the defense of slavery.

It wasn't treason; they succeeded from the US. You have a pretty weird perception of the civil war.

[Collatis]

No but they didn't actively commit and act of treason and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the defense of slavery.

It wasn't treason; they succeeded from the US. You have a pretty weird perception of the civil war.

Treason is the crime of betraying one's country. And that's exactly what the South did in the Civil War.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I look at statues and I think about the history they fought for not if they should be glorified or not. Even if you want to move it from that spot it sad, because it's been there for so long and the people around it have grown accustomed to seeing it and remembering.

As PWA said, "It is also telling that most of the statues coming down were erected decades after the civil war, conveniently around the same time as the birth of the 20th century KKK". Those statues don't have shit to do with "history" and everything to do with "those uppity blacks don't know their place, let's put up very public and highly visible statues of people that tore apart the country for the right to own them".

We made them in the past, so it's part of our history.
Historians preserve outdated coins, why can't they preserve statues? Why must we destroy works of our history, because their creators were racist? We preserve greek statues, and Roman statues why can't we keep civil war statues? Are you trying to destroy the past? Or perhaps you want to "clean the slate" like the soviets did and remove many artefacts and works, because the "opposed the regime".

[Holy Tedalonia]

It wasn't treason; they succeeded from the US. You have a pretty weird perception of the civil war.

Treason is the crime of betraying one's country. And that's exactly what the South did in the Civil War.

Wasn't there country anymore. They left and legally too. As far as history is concerned they were protecting their country, but of course since it's a small lived country they don't get that type of recognition, do they?

[Holy Tedalonia]

It's what you make it as. Really statues can be a mix bag, since they represent so many things. Some presidents heads that were slave owners are on Mount Rushmore should we tear their heads off?

Here is a litmus test: What is the person being displayed known for?
If your answer is: Being the first president, writing the Declaration of Independence, paying the sculptor and freeing the slaves, you're fine.
If your answer is: Leading a pro-slave treason against the United States, then we have a problem.

Sure, move those statues to museums to give them adequate historical context, that's great. However, statues in public serve very little of an educational purpose. If you want to remember history, that's fine. To quote doctor Jones Jr, that belongs in a museum. Public statues are reserved for those people whose core message we as a society declare to be noteworthy. For example, founding a liberal democracy, in case of Washington and Jefferson. Not levying war against the United States.

Fair point, but some regions in places like Texas treat the statues as men who fought for states rights, and it's also reinforced by the school. Removing statues in places like that would have a sizable opposition.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Treason is the crime of betraying one's country. And that's exactly what the South did in the Civil War.

Wasn't there country anymore. They left and legally too. As far as history is concerned they were protecting their country, but of course since it's a small lived country they don't get that type of recognition, do they?

Not legally, mind. Illegally. If it wasn't their country anymore, I guess they had no right to citizenship afterwards?

Here is a litmus test: What is the person being displayed known for?
If your answer is: Being the first president, writing the Declaration of Independence, paying the sculptor and freeing the slaves, you're fine.
If your answer is: Leading a pro-slave treason against the United States, then we have a problem.

Sure, move those statues to museums to give them adequate historical context, that's great. However, statues in public serve very little of an educational purpose. If you want to remember history, that's fine. To quote doctor Jones Jr, that belongs in a museum. Public statues are reserved for those people whose core message we as a society declare to be noteworthy. For example, founding a liberal democracy, in case of Washington and Jefferson. Not levying war against the United States.

Fair point, but some regions in places like Texas treat the statues as men who fought for states rights, and it's also reinforced by the school. Removing statues in places like that would have a sizable opposition.

Well, some white populations. Still, that is historical revisionism, one with which minorities generally don't agree.